Celebrities Are Being Sued For Posting Paparazzi Photos Of Themselves

[KatieJudasGaga4 67,907]

1 minute ago, DCgaga said:

I know but I really wanted this GIF to somehow manifest itself into something that has to do with this 

Also, so do I, one of my fave songs from Britney 

No, lol, I said "Off topic" because I was gonna say something off topic from this thread. Sorry if I confused you 

[DC 25,164]

3 minutes ago, KatieJudasGaga4 said:

No, lol, I said "Off topic" because I was gonna say something off topic from this thread. Sorry if I confused you 

Oh! It's ok! Thanks for the clarification, have an awesome day Katie! 

[DC 25,164]

3 minutes ago, KatieJudasGaga4 said:

No, lol, I said "Off topic" because I was gonna say something off topic from this thread. Sorry if I confused you 

P.S. Heavy Metal Lover tonight

[FATCAT 59,912]

I believe that this should be the way it works. Imagine if you are an award-winning photographer, and you take a picture of the statue of liberty from the ground. Now imagine that someone, in the hundreds of people there that day, ends up in the picture. Do they have a legal right to the copyright? Obviously not. It sucks, but it would suck much more if it were any other way.

[weed 73,337]

Depends on the photo.. if they’re walking down the street, sure, but if they’re on some vacation and paparazzi managed to find them and zoom in enough, they don’t deserve rights to the photos nor should they be allowed to sell them even imo

[FATCAT 59,912]

1 hour ago, Unbeweavable said:

Couldn't the celebrity then argue that the photo was taken without permission? This sounds stupid

If it's in public, no

[Economy 49,316]

34 minutes ago, shoful said:

Are you watching Cher being honored at the Kennedy Center?

I'm out

[DOJA CAT 1,833]

1 hour ago, Unbeweavable said:

Couldn't the celebrity then argue that the photo was taken without permission? This sounds stupid

Exactly 

[DOJA CAT 1,833]

5 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

not

 

5 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

I believe that this should be the way it works. Imagine if you are an award-winning photographer, and you take a picture of the statue of liberty from the ground. Now imagine that someone, in the hundreds of people there that day, ends up in the picture. Do they have a legal right to the copyright? Obviously not. It sucks, but it would suck much more if it were any other way.

But this isn’t 100 people it’s 1 person who is the main focus of the picture 

[Zombiecat 16,332]

2 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

If it's in public, no

well that's ****, so people are allowed to sell pics of you that were taken in public even if you have an issue with it? 

[Zombiecat 16,332]

1 minute ago, Queen of Venus said:

 

But this isn’t 100 people it’s 1 person who is the main focus of the picture 

Did you use those words on purpose  

[Benji 20,113]

17 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

I believe that this should be the way it works. Imagine if you are an award-winning photographer, and you take a picture of the statue of liberty from the ground. Now imagine that someone, in the hundreds of people there that day, ends up in the picture. Do they have a legal right to the copyright? Obviously not. It sucks, but it would suck much more if it were any other way.

Funnily enough, the U.K. was trying to clarify it’s laws on this kind of photography when trying to tackle the issue of upskirting.

Although the bill hasn’t yet passed, the original idea summarised was that clear subjects of photography should give consent and anyone who is not in a clearly compromised position is not required to give consent.  For example, if I took a photograph of a beach with a hundred people on it, I do not need consent however if I see that someone is in a compromised position then I should seek consent otherwise I am open to be sued if I attempt to share or profit on that photograph if it could damage someone’s reputation.

This doesn’t stop papparazi’s work from being reposted but this seems like a non-issue for them.  They all watermark and sell their work to the highest bidder, they should be pleased they get the stamp of approval from their subjects as well as their buyers.  They’d be out on their asses if certain celebrities signed more exclusives for their photography at events.

[shoful 13,304]

37 minutes ago, Economy said:

I'm out

They used a pic from the photoshoot in your profile pic during their speech for her

[FATCAT 59,912]

49 minutes ago, Unbeweavable said:

well that's ****, so people are allowed to sell pics of you that were taken in public even if you have an issue with it? 

Yes, pretty much.

[FATCAT 59,912]

51 minutes ago, Queen of Venus said:

 

But this isn’t 100 people it’s 1 person who is the main focus of the picture 

But it's that way for 1 because it's that way for 100.